Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

FatLittleMonkey writes "You may recall Cody Wilson's project to create a 3D printed gun, mentioned previously on Slashdot. Well, the Defense Distributed project has suffered a decidedly non-technical setback, with printer manufacturer Stratasys revoking the lease and repossessing the printer (presumably prying it from plastic models of Cory's cold dead hands). According to New Scientist, the manufacturer cited his lack of a federal firearms manufacturer's license as their reason for the repossession, adding that it does not knowingly allow its printers to be used for illegal purposes." Homemade firearms are not (in the U.S.) per se illegal on a federal basis, though states have varying degrees of regulation. It would be helpful if anyone more conversant with firearms law than me can point out what law or laws this project might be breaking.

French people have about 2.5 less guns per capita compared with the US, they have comparable suicide rates (sometimes red wine is not enough), but only 10% ot the murder rate.In other words a gun in France is 4 time less liable to kill somebody than in the US....

Or put in another form, american culture and social makeup explains approx 30 000 dead people per year, the fact that it is gun related is not the main factor.

I'm guessing this was done because the printer manufacturer is worried about the press that would hurt their buisiness, not because it's "illicit" or anything like that.

"Coming up on your shitty cable news program, TERRORIST PEDOPHILES can print out NEARLY ANY AUTOMATIC DEATH WEAPON AT HOME! Some experts (on making ridiculous statements) suggest they could print a NUCLEAR BOMB!!! Are YOUR children safe? NO THEY'RE FUCKING NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY LAWS AGAINST IT AND PEOPLE ARE ALREADY PRINTING OFF GUNS (sorta)"

Which, they probably have legitimate reason to be concerned about that. Those stories will pop up, and people will write their congressmen who will suggest we need government regulation over what 3D things you can print off. And there are industries who have interests in people not being able to easily print off their own potentially copyright-infringing items. And it's too much to hope that such people won't be selfish and won't use such FUD to kill 3D printing before it gets off the ground.

Still, I'd prefer people to deal head on with stupid bullshit FUD when it comes up rather than punishing individual customers who are driving the field forward.

I'm guessing this was done because the printer manufacturer is worried about the press that would hurt their buisiness, not because it's "illicit" or anything like that.

IMHO he's far more likely to be worried about being convicted on conspiracy charges and spending most of the rest of his life in federal PMITA prison if even one person who makes a gun using information from this project breaks even one tiny regulation.

The federal firearms regulations are intended to ban most weapons manufacturing and transfer except under very controlled conditions. But the federal government didn't have the constitutional authorization to write such laws - so they were written as a tax. Because they're a tax, the courts have carved out this one loophole. But the federal agencies charged with enforcing the de facto ban does everything it can to find a way to prevent the use of this loophole.

The primary agency in question is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) - recently expanded to "and explosives (BATFE). They are notorious for their "zeal", general incompetence, extreme violence, willingness to bend the rules to make an arrest, and for prosecuting obviously failing cases until the accused is bankrupted and loses by default. They have put literally tens of thousands of people in federal prison for minor paperwork errors or claims that fender washers or pieces of muffler tubing are parts of silencers, or that dummy grenades are being made live. They have raided collectors (often licensed as "dealers" because it's WAY cheaper that way) because their own paperwork was fouled - or for no discernible reason. In one incident they threw a pregnant woman up against a wall (she miscarried shortly after) and deliberately stomped a kitten to death, just to show their power. They set up the situation in Ruby Ridge that ended with a federal sniper shooting a woman holding her baby, and in Waco where a church camp was burned to the ground - in both cases over a dispute about "a $200 tax". They are referred to as "F troop" by other federal law agencies. The "Jackbooted Thugs" ad campaign was the NRA's most effective recruiting aid.

One of their favorite tricks is to have an agent pose as a curious teenager and ask someone at a gun show how to make a gun shoot full-auto. If he tells them, they arrest him for "conspiracy to violate the federal firearms act". (First amendment? What's that?) You can bet that they'd hang similar charges on the people running a company that leased a machine to a project that is attempting to enable the general population to sidestep the same laws easily and cheaply. It looks like the operator of the company is betting that way, too.

It isn't illicit. A manufacture's license is only required if you "sell" your product. The only problem would have been if the gun was illegal in that jurisdiction in the first place. Since Cody is a student of law in Texas. So, since it's Texas there's almost certainly no legal issue here and since he's a law student he'd stand a pretty good chance of knowing one way or another anyway. This has nothing to do with illegality and everything to do with Stratasys being fearful of getting a bad reputation as an enabler of terrorist groups and crazies.

But, while it is not illegal to make a firearm for your own use. But he's got a major problem as the government sees "donations" and "selling" as pretty much the same thing when it comes to this. He's taking money in in some form and offering essentially DIY gun kits. Bad move. He's a moron for not paying the fees and doing the paperwork and then doing what hundreds of other companies small and large are doing legally. Firearms are BIG money in the U.S. He can then go one step further and offer the things as working cheaper alternatives, offer cheaper replacement parts, and so on.

That's how he makes money at this. Not via donations, but via running a proper business. After all, have you SEEN the price of most firearms lately? A half or quarter-priced alternative would sell like crazy. He'd probably get a major retailer interested as well if the designs were properly safe and functional. As that show Son of Guns says, "If you're properly trained; if you're properly licensed, and you follow all of the laws, you too can do this." It never ceases to amaze me how many people out there make their lives difficult when a few dollars and some forms would have solved everything. Get your paperwork in order and you're golden. Forget about it and you're going to be dealing with people with little or no sense of humor.

He had a genius idea and should have run it as a business. Now, he's given most of the info away and is stuck without the right permits and even a printer.

Nope, what he was offering are not kits but plans/designs to allow those with the equipment to manufacture firearms. Something that is already legal and quite common in the metal working community. It's not illegal or even questionable to sell or share plans and blue prints. And it's not illegal or even questionable to build your own off of those plans. Plans are just that plans, without the equipment and knowhow said plans are not going to result in a firearm. But even if they do result in a home made firearm, that's still a legal activity. Regardless of how you got the plans, it's the actual firearm that would be in question, not the instructions.

What is questionable is the grounds on which this company violated a contract with no solid legal basis for doing so. The Feds hadn't said word one about it because until someone transfers (gives or sells) a home made firearm without a manufacturer's license there is no crime being committed in the manufacture, possession or use of said home made firearm. You can make all the guns you want for your own use as long as you retain legal ownership of the firearm. You just cannot legally transfer one without a license or at least a registered serial number (there are methods for obtaining a serial number to enable transfer of the firearm at a later date).

While plentiful in those areas where our CIA (thank you), China, the Russians, etc. supplied para-military groups for the sake of national agendas and/or profits that is true. However, within the borders of the U.S. there are impediments that make printing arms a more "interesting" alternative. Either way, this is image management for Stratasys pure and simple. Regardless of legality, regardless of logic, this is a pretty serious public relations/political policy landmine that they do not want to step on

If I announce to that world that I plan to make a firearm from my own shit (nevermind the fact that shit isn't necessarily a viable material), do I need to worry that McDonalds will start refusing me service?:p

Nothing illicit about it. It is 100% legal to make your own firearms. Federal law only comes into play when you wish to transfer the firearm to another individual (sell). At least two states (Utah and Montana) have authorized in-state only firearms that do not need any federal paperwork or serial number if made for and sold only in state.

i.e. if it does not cross state borders it does not enter interstate commerce and thus the Feds have no authority to regulate, as their authority to regulate was imposed via the commerce clause.

There is already a good sized community of metal workers who make their own guns, they share plans and designs just as this group planned to do, and then each individual can make his own fully legal firearm. This just moved it to another group of hobbyists.

What's next, refusing to sell printers to people because their for / against gay marriage? This is a tool and he was using it for legal purposes. What the manufacturer did was no different than any other kind of censorship. Deplorable.

Thing is, federal firearms laws are mostly about the sale of firearms. You can make them for your own use all day long and not break the federal law. But if you plan to sell them, you need to get serial numbers for them. And for that you need to register.

Normally I'd cite you over to wikipedia for a clear answer, but their blurb on this topic seems to be drafted specifically to avoid saying whether a gunsmith can build a receiver for personal use without a license -- any other use specifically requires a license. Beware the trap of "every gun owner knows" view of the law. This looks grey to me.

Per the ATF: "For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution."

Yes, they can. A FFL(federal firearms license) holder, who has paid the SOT(special Occupation Tax), either the 03(dealer) or 02(dealer/manufacturer; can do both), can sell or manufacturer and sell, all Title II, or NFA(National Frearm Act; suppressors/silencers, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, select-fire or full auto(there is a slight difference) firearms, or any other firearms that are not "destructive devices") firearms and parts/accessories. The caveat is that one needs a demonstration letter from a la

Theoretically yes. FFL's have a "bound book" of all firearms they process, with some exceptions. Gunsmiths can buy or make firearms unrelated to their business. If they are smart, while not legally required, they keep a journal (in the accounting sense of the word) of their personal firearms activities.

This is a regular issue. If you have a Type 1 FFL, you can sell firearms but not MAKE firearms. You need a Type 7 FFL to make and sell firearms. In addition, you must process FAET. That's the 10% Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax, processed by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau at the Treasury Department. The BATFE does not process FAET. Why, I have no idea.

So, if a gunsmith has a Type 1 FFL, he can legally make non-NFA weapons for personal noncommercial usage so long as he complies with State and Local law. But if he's intelligent, he goes to great lengths to very distinctively separate personal and business.

Firearm laws tend to be very complex. Add in a lot of case law (court decisions). Then add in subjective and changing BATFE determinations. Often, any combination of the above may be contradicting any combination of the above. It is very cumbersome.

Your username says it all...
For the record, as long as you obey rules on minimal length, maximal caliber and marking it you can make your own firearms all day long (from a Federal point of view at least). You cannot legally SELL or TRADE them, but making is legal. You can even buy 80% kits that are mostly machined for you and come with guides on where to drill the remaining holes, and you're still, under Federal law, legally making your own gun. And you don't have to register it with the federal government either.
The only question in this case was the invisible weapons rule which makes it illegal to manufacture a weapon for the purpose of avoiding metal detectors which an all-printed gun might trigger.

It was tested.When Glock first came out there were articles full of "The Plastic Pistol" that bad people would use to get past security.The spring is big. the barrel is a very large chunk of metal that is hard to miss.It is a bunch of people trying their best to scare you. That is all.

Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.

Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?
With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.

In this context, "non-sporting" generally means something that does not meet the minimal standards for "sporting" arms. Those standards include things like barrel length. So for example a "sawed-off" shotgun with a 12-inch barrel would be in the "non-sporting" category. You can make one yourself (in the U.S.), but you can't assemble one from imported parts. State regulations may also vary.

Also, by "NFA" firearm, they mean something that was generally prohibited by the National Firearms Act. Examples might be fully automatic guns (manufactured after the Act was passed), or a 40mm grenade launcher. You can still obtain most NFA firearms, but you must pay a rather steep tax, and apply for approval from the ATF.

Building personal firearms is LEGAL in the US and in Canada. Its transferring the product which is a grey zone towards black zone. Unless you have a actual license to manufacture firearms, and/or in the case of Canada properly have it tested in the hands of the RCMP, its illegal to transfer it to anyone else.

It can be argued, that since the law says anything but a complete receiver (the only part legally a firearm in North America, in some other places the barrel is the one that is regulated such as in Ge

Under US federal law, that is incorrect. Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68), Pub.L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213, enacted October 22, 1968 set up the Federal Firearms License system. It was reformed by the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), Pub.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, enacted May 19, 1986, codified at 18 U.S.C. 921. FOPA cut down on abuses by the BATFE, but due to the Hughes Amendment, restricted the production of new fully automatic weapons.

Mostly correct but you are incorrect about giving away. Any form of transfer of ownership to another individual is a transfer and at that point the weapon must be registered and serialized. However there are methods of obtaining legal transferable serial numbers. If it's going across a state line you have to go the expensive federal route, but if it's within the state, you may be able to obtain a state serial at little expense (depending on the state).

"You're legal if you fill out BATFE Form 1 - Application to Make and Register a Firearm and pay the tax (which is really the core of the issue.) The home-made firearm must be properly marked, and it's yours forever. You may not sell it, give it away, etc. It must comply with a bunch of other rules too - not an automatic weapon, not a short-barrel shotgun, etc."

Parts of this statement are misleading, and parts untrue.

With a few exceptions, you do NOT need a Federal permit to manufacture a gun for personal use. Somebody quoted the ATF webpage above, where it clearly states that. (And I have seen legal analyses of that same page. The language may be a bit wonky but it still says you don't need a permit.)

True, you may not sell it or give it away.

"It must comply with a bunch of other rules too - not an automatic weapon, not a short-barrel shotgun, etc."

False. It need not necessarily comply. Again, the ATF's own statement says that "non-sporting" firearms (a sawed-off shotgun is a "non-sporting" firearm) can be manufactured for personal use. However, if it is an "NFA" firearm, THEN you must pay the tax and get a permit.

A good friend of mine wanted to build a 1911 pistol (mostly as a machining exercise.) He contacted his lawyer as well as the BATFE. He was advised by both to fill out the Form 1 document. BATFE also provided him with a list of things he needed to do - identification of himself as the manufacturer (engraved on the frame) and serialization were the biggies. Granted, this was about 8 years ago, and I haven't dealt with this stuff since. My friend passed away shortly after, so I can't ask him for details.

No, this is not "censorship". This is Toyota reclaiming your car because you drove to a bar and they [Toyota] don't have a liquor license.

Not even close. More like Toyota voiding the lease and demanding the car back because the lease says "no entering car races" and you publicly state you're entering a car race with your leased Toyota.

Still not quite right; more like, Toyota repossesses your car because you say you want to enter it in a race, and Toyota is under the impression that a certain type of license you don't posses is legally required for said race, even though there is no such licensing requirement.

No, this is not "censorship". This is Toyota reclaiming your car because you drove to a bar and they [Toyota] don't have a liquor license.

Not even close. More like Toyota voiding the lease and demanding the car back because the lease says "no entering car races" and you publicly state you're entering a car race with your leased Toyota.

Still not quite right; more like, Toyota repossesses your car because you say you want to enter it in a race, and Toyota is under the impression that a certain type of license you don't posses is legally required for said race, even though there is no such licensing requirement.

We're getting closer. It's more like Toyota repossesses your car because you say you want to enter it in a race known for it's poor safety record for spectators, and Toyota is under the impression that a certain type of license you don't posses is legally required for said race, even though there is no such licensing requirement, but they don't want their brand associated with any negative press if any spectators get mowed down by their car.

No, it's a company saying "He's doing what? Is that legal? (Gets seven different contradictory answers) Oh FFS, can we not be involved with this?" Honestly, I can't blame the company here. Lawsuits happen every time someone sneezes in the USA. Maybe when the gunsmoke clears something can be worked out.

Gun control law is illogical, inconsistent, and subject to huge penalties and stigmas (do you want 'arrested on weapons charges, 2012' on your resume, even if you are cleared?).

FYI, you are only legally required to list convictions on job applications.

There's a reason companys like eBay and craigslist shy away from allowing even very obviously legal items--even gun accesories like holsters--to be traded on their sites--our lords at the ATF have no sense of humor.

OK, so the moral is, A) don't take your self-assembled gun to a public range (at least, not until you're sure they're functioning properly), and B) if someone tells you you should do something illegal/potentially illegal with a gun, ignore and/or kick the living shit out of them.

"This was compounded by Weaver's failure to appear in court to answer these charges. Weaver's original court date was Feb. 19 1991; it was changed to the following day, but Pretrial Services sent Weaver a notice citing the date as March 20. As a result, Weaver missed the hearing and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest, with the U.S. Marshals Service directed to serve it. By Feb. 27, it was widely known that Weaver had been given the wrong date. The U.S. Marshals Service wanted to allow Weaver the opportunity to show up in court on March 20, but the U.S. Attorneys Office sought a grand jury indictment on March 14 for Weaver's failure to appear. This convinced Randy and Vicki Weaver that he had no chance of a fair hearing."

Doesn't sound like a sawed-off shotgun is the reason his wife got shot. Never mind that a Justice Department review found Horiuchi's second bullet was fired unconstitutionally (the one that killed Vicki Weaver while she was holding her 10-month old daughter), and that deadly force policy was standardized across agencies in the aftermath of Ruby Ridge, so the likelihood of your wife getting shot for you selling a sawed-off shotgun is even lower today.

"Transferring a forging or casting that is so well dimensioned and therefore in a condition where it can be used without modification in a firearm is illegal. As its a completed receiver regardless if its been machined or not."

The problem with your argument is that a printer file is NOT a receiver.

It is only an engineering drawing converted to machine-readable format. It is nothing more than a description of the object, which is perfectly legal. You can transfer descriptions and engineering drawings and plans all day long. There is NOTHING illegal about it.

Further, it is nothing like having a complete receiver from a work standpoint. Far from it. You are actually manufacturing the entire thing.

Not just an analogy but a concrete example: I could send you a CNC file so that with the right machine, you could simply load the file and mill an entire receiver out of a block of aluminum. It doesn't matter that the machine is doing all the work! The work is still being done. You are manufacturing the entire piece.

Further, I don't even need to send you a CNC file. I can send you a CAD file -- an engineering drawing -- and you can convert it yourself with the proper software to CNC instructions.

There is nothing different about a 3D printer. It is simply a different method of manufacturing.

I have seen a relatively stupid argument with people who support extreme gun control. If we stopped selling guns, then we won't have guns, it is not like they can make their own guns.

I pointed out how a lot of crimes are committed from hand made guns, and they can make a deadly gun with normal parts in their workshed. And by Banning legal guns, people who want to perform other crimes will still have guns.

He broke no law AFAIK. He created a portion of the gun that is regulated in commercial export/sale, not manufacture. He didn't even create the full gun with the printer, and his "gun" likely wasn't reliable enough to be considered dangerous to someone it's aiming at.

Regardless of legal angles, though, Stratasys made it clear that this is not what they want their machines used for, and that is that. If he bought it, it might be different - but he was basically just renting it. I'm sure he can get a different 3D printer to work with.

Wired mentions that it is illegal to manufacture sawed-off shotguns or machine guns. An automatic rifle is not a machine gun according the the law, afaik. They are a separate class of weapon. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

An automatic rifle is not a machine gun according the the law, afaik. They are a separate class of weapon.

I believe that an "automatic rifle" means an auto-loading rifle which is the technical term for a "semi-automatic" weapon - i.e. the vast majority of rifles legally sold for civilian use in the modern area.

A "machine gun" is a fully automatic weapon and those are illegal for private individuals to own, period, unless they're made before 1986 and you've paid for a Federal "tax stamp," which I believe is $200 (I imagine they're still illegal for private citizens to own in certain jurisdictions; obviously, Kalifornia comes to mind). Corporations as well as certain manufacturers and dealers, however, can own fully automatic weapons made after 1986 but obviously certain rules apply.

The technical term for a "sawed-off" shotgun is an SBS (short-barreled shotgun) which is a smoothbore longarm with a barrel less than 18" in length (or, I believe, a total length - including the stock - of less than 26"). These also require a $200 "tax stamp" to the Feds.

Here's where things get a little tricky. Some rifles, such as the Saiga line, are imported for sporting purposes in a particular configuration. Generally, that means that do not incorporate any of the "evil" features that are typically associated with so-called "semi-automatic assault weapons". Chapter 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 478.11 defines these SAWs. You can read the law, here. Specific examples of these features include:

If your rifle or shotgun incorporates those features, it no longer is considered "suitable for sporting purposes".

Assembling Semiauto Rifles and Shotguns

If your rifle or shotgun is subject to 922R, you must now make sure that it is in compliance with the regulations governing the assembly of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. That is covered in Title 27 Chapter 1 Section 178.39. Click here to see the text of the law. It states:

(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

Paragraph (C) defines the following parts as "countable" under the law:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

and just in case someone thinks there're weasel words in section 313 of title 32:

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible forreenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the NationalGuard, a person must -(1) be a citizen of the United States; and(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

How is a 3D printer any different than a lathe, grinder or a milling machine?

Its not. Its standard lease terms that

1) We are not taking the fall in a conspiracy rap so officially we will not rent for illegal purposes. Often there's something along the lines of if we figure out you're a crook we reserve the right to violate privacy and turn you to the authorities in addition to cancelling the lease contract.

2) We have no desire to see our rentable machine rot in a federal evidence vault, unrented, for a decade or so as evidence while your trial grinds on, so doing something illegal

If you read between the lines of Stratasys' statement, the company's president clearly says:

"For the love of god please don't give us this kind of press. If we don't shut this down now I'm going to have Homeland Security on, over and in my ass. Don't ever use gun and printed in the same sentence again. My hands are too delicate for jail. Why are you doing this to me?"

It's against federal law to make a machine gun. In Tennessee, as long as he doesn't break any federal laws, he can do whatever he wants without the federal license, but he cannot he doesn't sell what he produces. If he keeps it personally, he isn't even required to put a serial number on the receiver. If he wants to sell it at a later time, however, he's required put a serial on it, and he also may invoke the wrath of the ATF. It's said that you can sell a reasonable number of homemade firearms per year w

Pity printers are not quite up to that yet but, when they are, I wonder what devastation it would cause to manufacturing industries ? What if you could print yourself a new toilet, kitchen appliance,... would people buy them from shops ? It depends on the costs of printing to the costs of buying a made item from the shop. Some items are never going to be printable, eg: CPUs and items requiring high strength (famous last words).

I never understood the hoopla about the whole gun thing... the ammo is the part that does the actual launching of the bullet, the gun is just to hold the ammo+bullet together while they're being fired.

It's kinda like putting serial numbers on hypodermic needles and making heroin legal enough to sell at Walmart.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly specifies that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It is clearly an "infringement" on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for there to be Federal limits on the right to manufacture Arms.
Since unconstitutional legislation is not law, there is no law against manufacture of Arms. The real question is: What to do about an outlaw government?

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly specifies that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is clearly an "infringement" on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for there to be Federal limits on the right to manufacture Arms.

The second amendment you quoted states that it is illegal for the government to prevent people from keeping and bearing arms. Nowhere does it state th

Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?

With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.

Q: Is it legal to assemble a firearm from commercially available parts kits that can be purchased via internet or shotgun news?

For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.

Oh the internet armchair libertarian brigade. Even when it's private enterprise infringing someone's rights, they rant about the government.

The "we don't have a license" angle is a diversion. This is all about Stratasys PR department not wanting a product they market to creative types to be linked in the public mind with the sort of firearms neckbeards that print AR lowers in their garages.

I doubt very much this is any move against Cody Wilson on a censorship/anti-gunownership level. Far more likely Stratasys went "holy crap someone could sue the living daylights out of us for making guns without a license"

Think about how litigation happy we are in the US - imagine someone using a 3D printer to print something dangerous, and getting hurt. Especially imagine if it's a little kid. It doesn't matter that the printer manufacturer in a logical, sane world is clearly not responsible - they'd be utterly destroyed in the current court climate. This probably hit Stratasys in the face and their legal team said "FULL STOP GUYS"

Yea, like how every time someone gets shot and killed during a criminal action, another gun manufacturer goes under due to being sued as an accessory to the crime.

Or, you know, you're obviously clueless, and should avoid speaking on topics you know nothing about.